Comment

Representation ID: 11818

Received: 15/02/2015

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Although there may be some limited opportunity to provide for local need on greenfield sites located on the edge of villages the capacity or existence of local infrastructure and services are likely to limit the available opportunities.
Limited brownfield land release may also be a possibility but it will be essential to ensure any losses of existing uses does not render communities and development patterns less sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 11819

Received: 20/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs Doreen Worth

Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Government has recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss. Brownfield site development could be advantageous for a community, especially derelict sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 11820

Received: 15/02/2015

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

The existence of brownfield uses in the countryside and greenbelt locations often, as noted in paragraph 3.15 of the SOCG, for waste and scrap uses, perform an essential function. Policies should not, therefore, encourage their redevelopment. In any case, the focus of the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development in three dimensions - economic, social and environmental. The development of existing small brownfield sites unable to provide their own closely related services and travel options is unlikely to accord with the policies of the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 11843

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs M Craddock

Brownfield sites are preferable for development of housing. Greenfield sites should only be used when distinct levels of benefit to the existing area are proved.

Comment

Representation ID: 11865

Received: 20/04/2015

Respondent: Mr Ian Drake

No development should be considered within the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 11871

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr John Warner

Brownfield sites must be developed in preference to green sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 11899

Received: 20/04/2015

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

There is not sufficent Brownfield land to address housing need, the sites are not always of a size to deliver larger family housing, and are often unable to provide the level of affordable homes or community benefits that greenfield sites can deliver. Recent changes in affordable housing contribution thresholds are relevant. BB will need to assess the qualiuty of the Green Belt sites and thier contribution to the 5 purposes of hte Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 11914

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Karen Powell

Whichever has the least impact on residents and has the better access for traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 11927

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Peter Robinson

Develop brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 11948

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs N. Blake

No to greenbelt for general housing in or around the villages even though the land may have become brownfield. The development of the existing villages around Brentwood should be avoided because THEY ARE VILLAGES and residents have no wish to find themselves living in towns.

The minor roads to the villages won't support any additional traffic. Previous growth has meant that the areas have as much traffic as the old road network can cope with.

Comment

Representation ID: 11961

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Lafferty

Villages and the countryside around them need to be preserved, not destroyed. The development of brownfield sites is preferable to greenfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 11975

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Webb

I disagree with destroying more green belt.
The use of Brownfield sites - wherever practical - is my preference. There WAS a good reason for the earlier use of these sites which often have a link to transport and utilities already present. Not using Brownfield sites will leave unsightly blots on the landscape and should be avoided.
Small Greenfield sites add to 'sprawl' and destroy local character BUT larger ones eg Dunton Garden suburb have considerable merit by comparison especially as they will be properly planned with schooling, shopping etc. and close to good transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 11993

Received: 21/04/2015

Respondent: WH Norris & Sons

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Scenario C in the Strategic Growth Areas Consultation report sets out a Housing Growth that meets objectively assessed needs and accounts for past unmet need. This is based on 6,200 dwellings. In order to meet this objectively assessed need it is centrally important that the council consider the allocation of Green Belt green field sites for residential development.The objectively assessed housing needs for Brentwood Borough Council far exceed the availability of brownfield land in the borough. The council cannot provide a sustainable level of housing in the Borough
without considering suitable greenfield land opportunities.

Comment

Representation ID: 11995

Received: 21/04/2015

Respondent: WH Norris & Sons

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

It is considered preferable to release Greenfield sites on the edge of villages where suitable. Such release of green belt sites should be considered when land is adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and will therefore have a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside. Sites should be considered where they are sustainably located and well-situated with regards to existing community facilities and services.
Overall this representation has demonstrated that land at Wyatt Green Lane, Wyatt's Green represents a logical expansion to the village in order to meet rural housing need and is fully deliverable in planning terms. The allocation of this site would provide a plan that is both justified and effective in meeting the criteria as set out within the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 12004

Received: 21/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs J.M. Wix

Yes and no.

Once you release Green Belt land in the area you have set a precedent for the builders to appeal for future developments again and again.

Comment

Representation ID: 12022

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Vera Grigg

To develop brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12050

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Richard Latham

Brownfield development would be preferable.

Comment

Representation ID: 12060

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Butler

In borough villages, if land needs to be released at all, then brownfield sites should be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 12073

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Glenda Fleming

This depends on the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 12079

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: mr Peter Wallis

It is better to develop brownfield sites and leave greenfield sites untouched.

Comment

Representation ID: 12094

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Keith Godbee

Of the two, brownfield sites is the preferred option but any development should not
affect the character of the local villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 12126

Received: 21/04/2015

Respondent: Elizabeth Finn Care

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Scenario C in the Consultation report sets out a Housing Growth that meets objectively assessed needs and accounts for past unmet need, of 6,200 dwellings. To meet this the council are considering the allocation of Green Belt green field sites for residential development. The OAN for Brentwood Borough Council far exceed the availability of brownfield land.. The council cannot provide a sustainable level of housing in the borough without considering suitable greenfield land opportunities. The land adjacent to Rayleigh Road, Hutton is a well placed sustainable site that can come forward in support of the councils housing land requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 12132

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Miss Katharine Turner

-When available brownfield should always be considered above greenfield. Small amounts of Green Belt Land around villages may provide opportunities for villages to grow sustainably. Releasing all the Green Belt land around west Horndon would not be sustainable, and would not create a balanced community.
Limited development in green belt may provide benefits which exceed the harm they cause. (eg. improve access to the park in West Horndon)

Comment

Representation ID: 12141

Received: 22/04/2015

Respondent: S J & C M Norris

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

As identified in the consultation document there is not adequate land within brownfield areas to meet the housing and employment growth requited to meet the objectively assessed need over the plan period. In this regard it is important that the Council releases land from the Green Belt in order to provide both the jobs and housing that the Borough requires.

Comment

Representation ID: 12148

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Tappenden

Villages and the countryside around them need to be preserved, not destroyed. The
development of brownfield sites is preferable to greenfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12178

Received: 22/04/2015

Respondent: Valerie Godbee

It is preferable to develop Brown field sites with the exception of those sites that are designated brownfield but only have barns or farm buildings on them. However, this question is a bit of a 'double edged sword'. I believe greenfield sites and villages as a whole should be preserved for the whole of Brentwood community to enjoy. Developing brownfield sites, although the lesser of two evils, takes away the character of villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 12211

Received: 23/04/2015

Respondent: S J & C M Norris

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Scenario C in consultation report sets out a Housing Growth, that OAN and accounts for past unmet need, of 6,200 dwellings over the 15 year plan period. The OAN for Brentwood Borough Council exceeds availability of brownfield land in the borough. The council cannot provide a sustainable level of housing in the borough without allocating suitable Green Belt land opportunities. It is preferable to release Greenfield sites on the edge of villages where suitable. Such release of Green Belt sites should be considered when land is adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and will have a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside. Sites should be considered where they are sustainably located and well-situated with regards to existing community facilities and services.

Comment

Representation ID: 12218

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Craske

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12238

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs A. Topham

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

There remains a very significant need for housing in Brentwood Borough. In order to meet full need appropriate sustainable sites should be allocated in all areas of the borough that can contribute to meeting needs whilst avoiding significant harm to the Green Belt. Housing needs far exceed availability of brownfield land in the borough. Therefore, release of Green Belt sites should be considered when land is adjacent to existing settlement boundaries, as these have minimal impact on countryside openness and are sustainable locations with regards to existing community facilities and services.

Comment

Representation ID: 12267

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Louise Hollamby-Craske

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.